Our church is using a sort of tiered approach to developing a new doctrinal statement for our church.
It begins with the first "tier" of two foundational statements: the existence of God and the inspiration of the Scriptures. These are in some sense presuppositional, and else all that we hold emanates from those truths.
The next tier is fundamental principles of the Bible. Much of this is shared with "orthodox" Christianity -- creation, Trinity, salvation by grace, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.
A third tier is statements on"church order." In these we differ from most Protestants, and even some Baptists. These are statements about the nature of the church, baptism, Lord's Supper, etc.
The fourth tier concludes with some statements about love. By love we know and recognize other disciples, not just by cold agreement to a written statement of faith. Without love we are nothing, a noise without life.
In addition to these four tiers, we will have some position statements on contemporary issues.
How would you approach writing a statement of faith?
Monday, April 08, 2013
Sunday, April 07, 2013
Are there degrees of punishment in Hell?
Some people believe there are degrees or differences of punishment in Hell (or the Lake of Fire), based on certain Scriptures listed below and perhaps others. What do you think? Do the comparisons of degree mean that or something else?
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. - Mark 6:11 (see also Matt 10:15ff & Luke 10:11-15)
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. - Luke 12:47,48
Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. - Luke 20:46,47
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. - Matthew 11:20-24
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. - John 15:22-24
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? - Heb 10:29
Do these verses imply that there are differences in the amount and/or intensity of eternal punishment one receives? If so, why? If not, why not?
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. - Mark 6:11 (see also Matt 10:15ff & Luke 10:11-15)
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. - Luke 12:47,48
Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. - Luke 20:46,47
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. - Matthew 11:20-24
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. - John 15:22-24
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? - Heb 10:29
Do these verses imply that there are differences in the amount and/or intensity of eternal punishment one receives? If so, why? If not, why not?
Saturday, April 06, 2013
Two events toward a busy day
Today was a busy day, two local events we attended and a third we didn't make -- the annual Carmine Sacred Harp Singing. Hope they had a good one.
This morning was the annual Hunt Cemetery Association meeting. We fellowshipped, ate, remembered, donated and took care of business.
This afternoon we celebrated my Mother's 98th birthday. On this day in 1915 she was born to Robert Lee and Mariah Loutisha Chapman in Rusk County, Texas. She has lived here all her life, except for about a year she spent in Nacogdoches with her brother and sister-in-law while finishing high school (most country schools had only 10 grades at the time). Happy Birthday, Mom! God has blessed you and us, and may He continue.
This morning was the annual Hunt Cemetery Association meeting. We fellowshipped, ate, remembered, donated and took care of business.
This afternoon we celebrated my Mother's 98th birthday. On this day in 1915 she was born to Robert Lee and Mariah Loutisha Chapman in Rusk County, Texas. She has lived here all her life, except for about a year she spent in Nacogdoches with her brother and sister-in-law while finishing high school (most country schools had only 10 grades at the time). Happy Birthday, Mom! God has blessed you and us, and may He continue.
To your health
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.
5 health benefits of red peppers
6 Surprising Foods That Put You to Sleep
(Bananas, Passionfruit Tea, Dates, Chinese Food, Cherries)
7 foods you should never eat
8 Spices with Health Benefits
10 Best Wines under $15
Some studies state that drinking a glass or two of red wine daily is healthful, lowering your risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and even cancer.
Anti-Aging Secret? It's in Your Diet
Fermented foods bubble with healthful benefits
Spices and Herbs: Their Health Benefits
The Greek Island Where People Live to Be 90 – Is it the Coffee?
Long life for coffee drinkers?
The Safest (and Cheapest) Cholesterol Treatment
Why Eat Local?
5 health benefits of red peppers
6 Surprising Foods That Put You to Sleep
(Bananas, Passionfruit Tea, Dates, Chinese Food, Cherries)
7 foods you should never eat
8 Spices with Health Benefits
10 Best Wines under $15
Some studies state that drinking a glass or two of red wine daily is healthful, lowering your risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and even cancer.
Anti-Aging Secret? It's in Your Diet
Fermented foods bubble with healthful benefits
Spices and Herbs: Their Health Benefits
The Greek Island Where People Live to Be 90 – Is it the Coffee?
Long life for coffee drinkers?
The Safest (and Cheapest) Cholesterol Treatment
Why Eat Local?
Friday, April 05, 2013
2 singings, coming soon
On Sunday the 28th we meet at Old Pine Grove on County Road 364 in the Pine Hill area of eastern Rusk County, Texas (between Roquemore & Pine Hill). We will sing from the 2012 Sacred Harp, Cooper Revision. Singing at both locations starts at 10 a.m. and concludes around 3 p.m.
For more information, maps, etc. click HERE and HERE.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Sacred Harp research, 6 suggestions
Turning a corner for a bit, I want to get in a few posts on Sacred Harp and shape note singing. Here are six suggestions for future Sacred Harp research that I believe would significantly further our understanding of our song book and our history.
1. The origins and connections of southeast Alabama, south Georgia & north Florida singers and conventions to B. F. White, his pedagogy and his students
2. The printings of the fourth edition of the Sacred Harp between 1870 and the turn of the 20th century
3. Careful analysis and study of the 1870 fourth edition of The Sacred Harp,—noting styles of songs added and removed, differences and similarities between it and White’s three previous editions
4. A significant comparison of the three editions of The Sacred Harp published by J. L. White from 1909 to 1911
5. The relationship between the early 20th century Sacred Harp revision committees—who produced five Sacred Harps in nine years
6. Comparison of W. M. Cooper rearrangements of popular church hymns and gospel songs he added to his early 20th century revision
1. The origins and connections of southeast Alabama, south Georgia & north Florida singers and conventions to B. F. White, his pedagogy and his students
2. The printings of the fourth edition of the Sacred Harp between 1870 and the turn of the 20th century
3. Careful analysis and study of the 1870 fourth edition of The Sacred Harp,—noting styles of songs added and removed, differences and similarities between it and White’s three previous editions
4. A significant comparison of the three editions of The Sacred Harp published by J. L. White from 1909 to 1911
5. The relationship between the early 20th century Sacred Harp revision committees—who produced five Sacred Harps in nine years
6. Comparison of W. M. Cooper rearrangements of popular church hymns and gospel songs he added to his early 20th century revision
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Newsworthy
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
Afghan Girl Rescued from Child Bride Fate
Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
Google Ignores Easter
Legal mess if Supreme Court strikes down DOMA
Pluto's Gate Uncovered in Turkey
Shakespeare the shrewd businessman
Supreme Court hears arguments in DOMA case
Texas prosecutor and wife slain at home
'The Bible', History Channel's miniseries
Tomb of Jesus' Apostle Found In Turkey?
Afghan Girl Rescued from Child Bride Fate
Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
Google Ignores Easter
Legal mess if Supreme Court strikes down DOMA
Pluto's Gate Uncovered in Turkey
Shakespeare the shrewd businessman
Supreme Court hears arguments in DOMA case
Texas prosecutor and wife slain at home
'The Bible', History Channel's miniseries
Tomb of Jesus' Apostle Found In Turkey?
Law, marriage and government interest
The concept of law is based on judgment, much of which is moral judgment -- e.g. moral judgment against murder, assault, theft, slander, pedophilia, bestiality, rape. Americans are fast losing the ability to draw a line of law based on moral judgment, or perhaps have abandoned the basic foundations of that judgment. Laws cannot stand independently of moral foundation. Eventually at stake in the debate about homosexuality and same-sex marriage is the ability to express moral judgment regarding any behavior.
Whether or not one engages the moral debate about homosexuality, does the state have any compelling interest -- for general welfare and common good -- in the contract of marriage? A piece of paper from the court house does not make a marriage moral, but it does make it legally recognized. With good reason, for thousands of years marriage has been understood as a covenant entered by a man and a woman. Men and women are the two halves of a puzzle that uniquely blend into one whole. They are both different and complementary. Mothering and fathering are unique and particular roles, important to the development of children. The proper development of children into good citizens is an interest of the state for its general welfare and common good. (Reversal of some of our inane divorce law would be another step in the right direction.) Traditional marriage "serves the good of children, the good of spouses, and the common good of society."
In the book What is Marriage, authors Girgis, Anderson, and George explain that the traditional view of marriage, a life-long conjugal commitment, is giving way to a "revisionist view". This view "is a vision of marriage as, in essence, a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity—a bond that needn’t point beyond the partners, in which fidelity is ultimately subject to one’s own desires. In marriage, so understood, partners seek emotional fulfillment, and remain as long as they find it." This revision is not newly formed for the defense of homosexual marriage, but "has informed the marriage policy reforms of the last several decades." It contributes to the decay of traditional marriage. The view is not new. Same-sex marriage is simply the current outcropping of this agenda. It will not be the last.
We ought to obey God rather than men, but I find no reason that we cannot obey God and get a marriage license. Under God, we don't need the state's permission to marry. Under the law, there are multitudes of intertwined legal issues of long historical standing that would be a nightmare if there were "no permission slips for marriage." The best government governs less rather than more. When and where it governs, it should govern with compelling interest for the common good and general welfare of all of its citizens. I believe marriage and its fruits is one of those interests.
Whether or not one engages the moral debate about homosexuality, does the state have any compelling interest -- for general welfare and common good -- in the contract of marriage? A piece of paper from the court house does not make a marriage moral, but it does make it legally recognized. With good reason, for thousands of years marriage has been understood as a covenant entered by a man and a woman. Men and women are the two halves of a puzzle that uniquely blend into one whole. They are both different and complementary. Mothering and fathering are unique and particular roles, important to the development of children. The proper development of children into good citizens is an interest of the state for its general welfare and common good. (Reversal of some of our inane divorce law would be another step in the right direction.) Traditional marriage "serves the good of children, the good of spouses, and the common good of society."
In the book What is Marriage, authors Girgis, Anderson, and George explain that the traditional view of marriage, a life-long conjugal commitment, is giving way to a "revisionist view". This view "is a vision of marriage as, in essence, a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity—a bond that needn’t point beyond the partners, in which fidelity is ultimately subject to one’s own desires. In marriage, so understood, partners seek emotional fulfillment, and remain as long as they find it." This revision is not newly formed for the defense of homosexual marriage, but "has informed the marriage policy reforms of the last several decades." It contributes to the decay of traditional marriage. The view is not new. Same-sex marriage is simply the current outcropping of this agenda. It will not be the last.
We ought to obey God rather than men, but I find no reason that we cannot obey God and get a marriage license. Under God, we don't need the state's permission to marry. Under the law, there are multitudes of intertwined legal issues of long historical standing that would be a nightmare if there were "no permission slips for marriage." The best government governs less rather than more. When and where it governs, it should govern with compelling interest for the common good and general welfare of all of its citizens. I believe marriage and its fruits is one of those interests.
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Marriage rights
Last Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the case against California's Propostion 8 -- no homosexual marriage -- and Wednesday on the Defense of Marriage Act.
In our country the Right argues that traditional marriage (between one man & one woman) should be protected by the government. The Left holds that the state should recognize and legalize homosexual relationships as marriage. Both want the government to settle the matter. Between these two enters a third view -- some libertarians believe that it is not the government's job to define or regulate marriage. Their mantras have become "Get the state out of the marriage business" and "No permission slips for marriage."*
Tom Head, a homosexual-marriage proponent speaking at Mississippi College, wrote "The argument that I found most effective with this Baptist audience...hinged on the sacramental role of government. Namely: What business does the government have mandating sanctity? If the government can make marriage sacred, then can it give us all a place in the world to come, too? And if there is a legal 'sanctity of marriage' that the government would be interfering with by allowing marriage rights for same-sex couples, then doesn't that imply government support for some pretty controversial heterosexual marriages?"
The libertarian view, when challenged, isn't without restrictions, for most will add that the government shouldn't legislate relationships between consenting adults. Many of those who want "no permission slips for marriage" would doubtless deny permission for a 50 year-old adult to marry a 10 year-old child, and might have problems with brothers marrying sisters. If modified, though, the position is actually capitulated by agreeing that in some cases the government should be in the marriage business!
I am somewhat moved by both the divine institution and libertarian arguments. Marriage was instituted by God, is first and foremost between a couple and God, and marriage can, I believe, be covenanted by serious persons without the consent or acknowledgement of government. But does that mean that a government has no interest in their own societal structure? Obviously, most all of us believe they have some interest, since most agree that it should not be entered by non-consenting adults or minors.
Marriage traditionally is a certain thing that can be recognized and defined, yea, has been. It is interesting to notice the evolution of the definition of marriage through the changes in Webster's Dictionaries.
In 1828 Webster's dictionary defined marriage: "The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children." This definition was still in the last edition of the American Dictionary of the English Language that Noah Webster made before his death.
The 1913 edition is similar -- "The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony" -- but adds "Any intimate or close union" (though it is unlikely that marriages between two persons of the same sex was in view). The current Merriam-Webster online recognizes marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law," but also includes "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."
In effect marriage is redefined as an emotional and/or sexual union that resembles that which we have traditionally recognized as marriage.
Non-interference in marriage may suit libertarians and some Christians, but it is unlikely to reach the same-sex marriage movement which is bent on recognition. In response to a Facebook entry that "real equality would be government that is not in charge of marriage" one respondent opined, "If I cannot come together, with a partner or partners of my choosing and declare myself married in my own eyes, then I really lack the ability to be married." Taken to its logical conclusion, this statement shows that the ultimate design is for marriage to be whatever an individual wants it to be. This exalts the anarchy of the individual over the general welfare of society.
* Note, I am not discussing whether marriage in the U.S. should be regulated at the state or federal level. Here I am considering the philosophical question of whether government should regulate marriage at all. If marriage is a divine creation and religious institution, what part (if any) should government play in it?
In our country the Right argues that traditional marriage (between one man & one woman) should be protected by the government. The Left holds that the state should recognize and legalize homosexual relationships as marriage. Both want the government to settle the matter. Between these two enters a third view -- some libertarians believe that it is not the government's job to define or regulate marriage. Their mantras have become "Get the state out of the marriage business" and "No permission slips for marriage."*
Tom Head, a homosexual-marriage proponent speaking at Mississippi College, wrote "The argument that I found most effective with this Baptist audience...hinged on the sacramental role of government. Namely: What business does the government have mandating sanctity? If the government can make marriage sacred, then can it give us all a place in the world to come, too? And if there is a legal 'sanctity of marriage' that the government would be interfering with by allowing marriage rights for same-sex couples, then doesn't that imply government support for some pretty controversial heterosexual marriages?"
The libertarian view, when challenged, isn't without restrictions, for most will add that the government shouldn't legislate relationships between consenting adults. Many of those who want "no permission slips for marriage" would doubtless deny permission for a 50 year-old adult to marry a 10 year-old child, and might have problems with brothers marrying sisters. If modified, though, the position is actually capitulated by agreeing that in some cases the government should be in the marriage business!
I am somewhat moved by both the divine institution and libertarian arguments. Marriage was instituted by God, is first and foremost between a couple and God, and marriage can, I believe, be covenanted by serious persons without the consent or acknowledgement of government. But does that mean that a government has no interest in their own societal structure? Obviously, most all of us believe they have some interest, since most agree that it should not be entered by non-consenting adults or minors.
Marriage traditionally is a certain thing that can be recognized and defined, yea, has been. It is interesting to notice the evolution of the definition of marriage through the changes in Webster's Dictionaries.
In 1828 Webster's dictionary defined marriage: "The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children." This definition was still in the last edition of the American Dictionary of the English Language that Noah Webster made before his death.
The 1913 edition is similar -- "The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony" -- but adds "Any intimate or close union" (though it is unlikely that marriages between two persons of the same sex was in view). The current Merriam-Webster online recognizes marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law," but also includes "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."
In effect marriage is redefined as an emotional and/or sexual union that resembles that which we have traditionally recognized as marriage.
Non-interference in marriage may suit libertarians and some Christians, but it is unlikely to reach the same-sex marriage movement which is bent on recognition. In response to a Facebook entry that "real equality would be government that is not in charge of marriage" one respondent opined, "If I cannot come together, with a partner or partners of my choosing and declare myself married in my own eyes, then I really lack the ability to be married." Taken to its logical conclusion, this statement shows that the ultimate design is for marriage to be whatever an individual wants it to be. This exalts the anarchy of the individual over the general welfare of society.
* Note, I am not discussing whether marriage in the U.S. should be regulated at the state or federal level. Here I am considering the philosophical question of whether government should regulate marriage at all. If marriage is a divine creation and religious institution, what part (if any) should government play in it?
The institution of marriage
Marriage is a divine institution.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27-28)
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25)
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (Genesis 5:2)
Marriage is a social, legal, covenantal and specific institution.
Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. (Jeremiah 29:5-7)
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20:17)
Marriage and divorce were regulated under Moses' law. For examples, see above and Exodus 21:10, Leviticus 18:18, 20:14, and Deuteronomy 7:3, 25:5.
Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. (Malachi 2:14)
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)
Marriage is not an eternal institution.
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: (Luke 20:34-34)
[Except for the marriage of the Lamb and His bride -- Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. (Revelation 19:7)]
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27-28)
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25)
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (Genesis 5:2)
Marriage is a social, legal, covenantal and specific institution.
Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. (Jeremiah 29:5-7)
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20:17)
Marriage and divorce were regulated under Moses' law. For examples, see above and Exodus 21:10, Leviticus 18:18, 20:14, and Deuteronomy 7:3, 25:5.
Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. (Malachi 2:14)
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)
Marriage is not an eternal institution.
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: (Luke 20:34-34)
[Except for the marriage of the Lamb and His bride -- Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. (Revelation 19:7)]
In His Steps, or Stepping on Him?
Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper. Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence, instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.The above exercise is supposedly a way to “discuss the importance of symbols in culture.” It comes from the textbook Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach. Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida and communications instructor Deandre Poole are front and center of a recent flap over "stomping on Jesus". When Poole used the exercise in his Intercultural Communications class, student Ryan Rotella objected. Initially Rotella was suspended from class, but with everyone in "spin mode" it is hard to discern which version of why he was suspended is true. Regardless, Rotella has been reinstated, Poole has been put on administrative leave (because of death threats, according to FAU), and the university has repudiated the use of such an exercise.
It is likely that the university has banned the exercise because of the public outcry, not anything to do with academic freedom or religious liberty. It's bad publicity! They don't want any more of that. It hasn't been long since the university distanced itself from the theories of James Tracy, a tenured communications professor in the same department as Poole. On his blog Tracy has described the Newtown massacre as a governmental conspiracy rather than a real shooting incident.
Note sure of all the facts of the incident, I will reserve detailed comment. But I found the following reported facts interesting. The complaining student, Ryan Rotella, is a Mormon. The teacher, Deandre Poole, claims to be a Christian and a Sunday School teacher. No other students, Christian or otherwise, evidently refused to participate in the exercise. No other names -- Mohammed, Allah, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin -- are ever "stepped on". James Neuliep, author of the source textbook, is a Professor of Communication and Media Studies at St. Norbert, a Catholic liberal arts college.
Links to various articles and opinions about the controversy:
A Message from Florida Atlantic University
FAU Student Claims He Was Suspended For Refusing To Step On Jesus
Florida Atlantic University 'Jesus stomping' case: Student upset, Governor comments
Florida Atlantic U., Left-Wing Seminary
Florida Atlantic University Professor Has Students Stomp On Paper With Word 'Jesus'
He Didn't Say 'Stomp on Jesus'
'I Was Doing My Job'
‘Jesus Stomp’ Professor on Leave, Getting Death Threats
Professor calls his 'step on Jesus' exercise a 'reaffirmation' of faith
"Stomp on Jesus!"
"Stomp on Jesus!" Update
Victory for Florida Student Who Refused to Stomp on Jesus’ Name
Monday, April 01, 2013
3 questions about the "All things" of Romans 8:28
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28
What are the all things of Romans 8:28?
Are they the things in the verses following? Some say so; for example, "The things embraced in this lesson are foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. All things don't mean everything that is going on in the world but what God determined to do for his people."
Are they all things that are happening in our lives? Spurgeon said, "He knows too that God is always wise, and, knowing this, he is confident that there can be no accidents, no mistakes; that nothing can occur which ought not to arise. He can say, "If I should lose all I have, it is better that I should lose than have, if God so wills: the worst calamity is the wisest and the kindest thing that could befall to me if God ordains it."
Are the all things not "everything", but all of the things God has ordered for our good - a sort of general good? Adam Clarke wrote, "Whatever troubles, or afflictions, or persecutions may arise, God presses them into service; and they become a part of the general working, and are caused to contribute to the general good of the person who now loves God."
These are all the options of which I can think. There may be other views that I have not heard. I believe Romans 8:28, considered with other scriptures, means that God provides and works together all things that happen to us -- every pain & every joy, every victory & every defeat, every laugh & every tear, every getting & every losing, every rending & every mending -- for our ultimate good, that is for His people.
What are the all things of Romans 8:28?
Are they the things in the verses following? Some say so; for example, "The things embraced in this lesson are foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. All things don't mean everything that is going on in the world but what God determined to do for his people."
Are they all things that are happening in our lives? Spurgeon said, "He knows too that God is always wise, and, knowing this, he is confident that there can be no accidents, no mistakes; that nothing can occur which ought not to arise. He can say, "If I should lose all I have, it is better that I should lose than have, if God so wills: the worst calamity is the wisest and the kindest thing that could befall to me if God ordains it."
Are the all things not "everything", but all of the things God has ordered for our good - a sort of general good? Adam Clarke wrote, "Whatever troubles, or afflictions, or persecutions may arise, God presses them into service; and they become a part of the general working, and are caused to contribute to the general good of the person who now loves God."
These are all the options of which I can think. There may be other views that I have not heard. I believe Romans 8:28, considered with other scriptures, means that God provides and works together all things that happen to us -- every pain & every joy, every victory & every defeat, every laugh & every tear, every getting & every losing, every rending & every mending -- for our ultimate good, that is for His people.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Easter
Easter is mentioned only once in the Bible -- Acts 12:4 -- where in context it refers to the Passover season. The Passover was a fixed date which came at the same time of year, the 14th of the month Nisan. Yet in our culture (the "West"), when we celebrate what we call Easter, which is supposed to acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we have a day that moves around based on
the first Sunday following the full moon that falls on or after the spring equinox. (Oh, the confusion of it all!)
All confusion aside, we know that Christ is risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept (1 Corinthians 15:20). Every Lord's Day when we meet, every new morning and every new life ought to be a reminder of the glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ's resurrection is God's firstfruits, the earnest guarantee of the future resurrection of His saints. His indwelling Spirit completes that earnest -- Christ in you, the hope of glory!
Jesus said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. (John 11:25).
"I Am, saith CHRIST, our glorious head,
(May we attention give)
The resurrection of the dead,
The life of all that live.
By faith in me, the soul receives
New life, though dead before;
And he that in my name believes,
Shall live, to die no more.
The sinner, sleeping in his grave,
Shall at my voice awake;
And when I once begin to save,
My work I ne'er forsake."
Fulfill thy promise, gracious LORD,
On us assembled here,
Put forth thy Spirit with the word,
And cause the dead to hear.
Preserve the pow'r of faith alive,
In those who love thy name;
For sin and Satan daily strive
To quench the sacred flame.
Thy pow'r and mercy first prevailed
From death to set us free;
And often since our life had failed,
If not renewed by thee.
To thee we look, to thee we bow;
To thee, for help, we call;
Our life and resurrection thou,
Our hope, our joy, our all.
Hymn 116, The resurrection and the life. Jn 11:25, from Olney Hymns, John Newton (Common Meter)
All confusion aside, we know that Christ is risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept (1 Corinthians 15:20). Every Lord's Day when we meet, every new morning and every new life ought to be a reminder of the glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ's resurrection is God's firstfruits, the earnest guarantee of the future resurrection of His saints. His indwelling Spirit completes that earnest -- Christ in you, the hope of glory!
Jesus said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. (John 11:25).
"I Am, saith CHRIST, our glorious head,
(May we attention give)
The resurrection of the dead,
The life of all that live.
By faith in me, the soul receives
New life, though dead before;
And he that in my name believes,
Shall live, to die no more.
The sinner, sleeping in his grave,
Shall at my voice awake;
And when I once begin to save,
My work I ne'er forsake."
Fulfill thy promise, gracious LORD,
On us assembled here,
Put forth thy Spirit with the word,
And cause the dead to hear.
Preserve the pow'r of faith alive,
In those who love thy name;
For sin and Satan daily strive
To quench the sacred flame.
Thy pow'r and mercy first prevailed
From death to set us free;
And often since our life had failed,
If not renewed by thee.
To thee we look, to thee we bow;
To thee, for help, we call;
Our life and resurrection thou,
Our hope, our joy, our all.
Hymn 116, The resurrection and the life. Jn 11:25, from Olney Hymns, John Newton (Common Meter)
Saturday, March 30, 2013
18 Readings for the weekend
Links, posted in two sets due to the budget of time -- these were alphabetized separately at different times and I don't want to take the time (and thought) to merge them! Forgive the laziness and/or the busyness, and wade on in to find some wild news stories, forceful opinions on current events, an interview with a church historian and much more.
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
Set one
A Succinct Case for Traditional Marriage
Being informed on challenges to religious liberty
Confronting Senator Portman’s use of scripture to affirm gay marriage
Should a Christian Dentist Fire His Too-Hot Hygienist?
The Last Time There were Two (Three!) Popes
The Wisdom of Church History: an Interview with Michael Haykin
Three Rules for Polemics
We are Baptist Because website
Why do some Protestants become Catholics?
Set two
Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’
Colo. sheriff refuses to enforce gun-control bills
Obama-Satan Resemblance on 'The Bible' History Channel series *
South African cardinal says pedophilia is illness, not a crime
Sweetgum Grove Baptist Museum
Teen calls her car crash a blessing
Whatcott ‘Hate Crime’ decision at the Canadian Supreme Court
Woman who inspired book and movie 'The Natural' dies
$22 minimum wage: the mindlessness of politicians
* One tweeter quipped that the Satan on the History Channel’s show ‘The Bible’ "looks so much like President Obama that Paul Ryan is calling for cuts to the show’s budget." (now that's funny, I don't care who you are!)
The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.
Set one
A Succinct Case for Traditional Marriage
Being informed on challenges to religious liberty
Confronting Senator Portman’s use of scripture to affirm gay marriage
Should a Christian Dentist Fire His Too-Hot Hygienist?
The Last Time There were Two (Three!) Popes
The Wisdom of Church History: an Interview with Michael Haykin
Three Rules for Polemics
We are Baptist Because website
Why do some Protestants become Catholics?
Set two
Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’
Colo. sheriff refuses to enforce gun-control bills
Obama-Satan Resemblance on 'The Bible' History Channel series *
South African cardinal says pedophilia is illness, not a crime
Sweetgum Grove Baptist Museum
Teen calls her car crash a blessing
Whatcott ‘Hate Crime’ decision at the Canadian Supreme Court
Woman who inspired book and movie 'The Natural' dies
$22 minimum wage: the mindlessness of politicians
* One tweeter quipped that the Satan on the History Channel’s show ‘The Bible’ "looks so much like President Obama that Paul Ryan is calling for cuts to the show’s budget." (now that's funny, I don't care who you are!)
Friday, March 29, 2013
Quoting randomly
"As an exegete I am bound by what the Scripture actually says, not by what I wish it might say." -- Randy Jaeggli
"No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good." -- C. S. Lewis
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -- C. S. Lewis
"Burying your talent is a grave mistake." -- Mahl Baptist church sign
“It is not we who can sustain the Church, nor was it our forefathers, nor will it be our descendants. It was and is and will be the One who says: 'I am with you always, even unto the end of the world'.” -- Martin Luther (As cited by Karl Barth in Church Dogmatics)
"We are all terminal." -- Valerie Harper
* An exegete is a textual interpreter, usually in reference to the Christian Scriptures
"No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good." -- C. S. Lewis
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -- C. S. Lewis
"Burying your talent is a grave mistake." -- Mahl Baptist church sign
“It is not we who can sustain the Church, nor was it our forefathers, nor will it be our descendants. It was and is and will be the One who says: 'I am with you always, even unto the end of the world'.” -- Martin Luther (As cited by Karl Barth in Church Dogmatics)
"We are all terminal." -- Valerie Harper
* An exegete is a textual interpreter, usually in reference to the Christian Scriptures
Thursday, March 28, 2013
3 apostolic options regarding the resurrection
The apostles of Jesus sealed their faith with their own blood, dying as martyrs of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Most of the apostles and many of the earliest Christians died for their faith. Their faithfulness unto death constitutes one of the witnesses of the truth of the resurrections. Some who are determined not to believe will line up their reasons, but a sincere inquirer is willing to thoughtfully consider a faith strong enough to die for.
In What Happened to the Apostles, C. Michael Patton considers “How their Deaths Evidence Easter.” Patton looks at the historical traditions concerning the apostles, answers objections, and highlights three options concerning the apostles:
In What Happened to the Apostles, C. Michael Patton considers “How their Deaths Evidence Easter.” Patton looks at the historical traditions concerning the apostles, answers objections, and highlights three options concerning the apostles:
1. They died for a lie and knew it (unsustainable do to lack of any reasonable motive).People may die for a lie they have been convinced to believe is true, but “People do not die for their own lies, half-truths, or fabrications. If the Apostles truly died proclaiming to have seen Christ dead then alive and ascend into heaven, Christ is who He said He was, God incarnate who came to take away the sins of the world.”
2. They were all delusional and crazy (but this would take more faith than any option since you would have to explain how they all had the same delusion and craziness—many being at different places and different times).
3. What they said was true. Christ did rise from the grave and is who He said He was.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Wednesday institution of the Lord's Supper
Last spring I read and printed a Yahoo News article titled Last Supper was a day earlier, scientist claims. As I was sorting and filing this morning, I found the 2 pages I had printed which reminded me of this. As one who has long ago come to a conclusion that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday rather than Friday, I found this claim interesting. The scientist, Colin Humphreys has written a book called The Mystery Of The Last Supper which says it finds "a new solution" to the chronology of Jesus's last days "based on a combination of Biblical, historical and astronomical research." I have no idea of Humphreys' position on the authority of the Bible and can't recommend what he wrote. I, nevertheless, found it intriguing. The following comment is helpful to address those who think the Gospel accounts are contradictory:
“Whatever you think about the Bible, the fact is that Jewish people would never mistake the Passover meal for another meal, so for the Gospels to contradict themselves in this regard is really hard to understand,” Professor Humphreys said.
Oral arguments on California Prop. 8 case
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry. This case challenges the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in the state of California. For some intense reading, the full transcript of the oral arguments can be found HERE. The linked page also contains a link for one to listen to the audio of the oral arguments.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
McLaren on the Resurrection
Dear brethren, on the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is suspended everything which makes the Gospel good news. Strike that out, and what have you left? Some beautiful bits of moral teaching, a lovely life, marred by tremendous mistakes about Himself and His own importance and His relation to men and to God; but you have got nothing left that is worth calling a gospel. You have the cross rising there, gaunt, black, solitary; but, unless on the other side of the river you have the resurrection, no bridge will ever be thrown across the black gulf, and the cross remains ‘dead, being alone.’ You must have a resurrection to explain the Cross, and then the life and the death tower up into the manifestation of God in the flesh and the propitiation for our sins. Without it we have nothing to preach which is worth calling the gospel....
If He whom we believed to be our sacrifice by His death and our sanctification by His life has not risen, then, as we have seen, all which makes His death other than a martyr’s vanishes, and with it vanish forgiveness and purifying. Only when we recognise that in His cross explained by His resurrection, "we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins," (Col. 1:14) and by the communication of the risen life from the risen Lord possess that new nature which sets us free from the dominion of our evil, is faith operative in setting us free from our sins.
Expositions of Holy Scripture: Volume 13, by Alexander MacLaren
If He whom we believed to be our sacrifice by His death and our sanctification by His life has not risen, then, as we have seen, all which makes His death other than a martyr’s vanishes, and with it vanish forgiveness and purifying. Only when we recognise that in His cross explained by His resurrection, "we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins," (Col. 1:14) and by the communication of the risen life from the risen Lord possess that new nature which sets us free from the dominion of our evil, is faith operative in setting us free from our sins.
Expositions of Holy Scripture: Volume 13, by Alexander MacLaren
1 Peter 3:15
So, is 1 Peter 3:15 the "Great Commission for Apologetics" or an exhortation to be ready to give your testimony? The word translated "answer" is apologia, the word from which we get the English word "apologetics." It may mean a verbal defense or a reasoned statement. The word itself could include either. What may we glean from the context?
The immediate context is the sentence of 1 Peter 3:14-16: But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
The broader context contains instructions for the behavior of God's people, beginning in 2:11. This includes submission of Christians to law & government, of servants to masters, or wives to husbands. Giving an answer is part of that behavior, a dual submission to God and man. A submission to God in having and giving an answer, and submission to man in giving an answer to those who ask. Christians should live in fear of God and not what man might do. Disciples may suffer for righteousness sake, but do not recoil in fear.
Rather than fear what man might do, let us sanctify/separate/set apart the Lord in our hearts. Isaiah writes, "Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread (Isaiah 8:13)." The Lord God is the one we are to regard as holy; let us set that aside in our hearts and act accordingly. This prepares us to be "be ready". We are to be ready to "give an answer". This answer is apologia, a reasoned statement of why there is a hope within us. We can and should search the scriptures, rightly divide the word of truth and earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. But let us not forget the simplicity of the untutored new creature showing "how great things God hath done unto thee. Luke 8:39)."
The witness here is not one of evangelism, but a witness or answer to those who ask or inquire honestly (or authoritatively) concerning our hope. Some Bible students believe that this should be connected to the submission to authorities as taught in chapter 2. If so, the readiness advised may be considered more prayerful and spiritual rather than academic, for Jesus told His apostles when they were brought to the synagogues, and before magistrates and authoritiess, they were to take "no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say -- For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say (Luke 12:11-12)." This doesn't sound like a prepared speech or programmed answer.
John Gill writes that the answer should not be delivered in a light, trifling, and negligent manner, and no part of truth be dropped or concealed in order to please men. Further he encourages it be answered with all due respect to all men, especially the civil magistrates, who may ask the reason, with a reverence suitable to the subject.
We should give answer with meekness and fear (fear God more and fear men less, Luke 12:4-5). Our answers to men are with respect towards man, and proper fear or reverence towards God. If we fear God more than we fear man, we will not be afraid to "give an answer". Some avoid making their Christianity audible or visible, shy away from conflict, and either do not or seldom do give any answers to any men. Certainly we need to know to be swift to hear and slow to speak, but that advice rises from the appropriate application of wisdom, not from being mute concerning our faith. The intent includes deflecting false accusations off oneself, but particularly because it is reflection on the Christian profession. Do it all in good conscience, with good intent and good conversation that contradicts the false accusations and embarasses the false accusers. The Christian answers, keeping a good conscience, which others cannot see and displaying good behaviour, which which others can see. We do what is right no matter what.
The answering Christian resigns to God's will and way, "If we suffer, we suffer." We live in a world of perpetual suffering, and how much better it is to suffer for doing good rather than suffer for doing wrong! In Peter's instruction we hear echoes of the words of the "3 Hebrew children": God is able to deliver us, we believe He will deliver us, but if not, we will serve the Lord regardless.
The immediate context is the sentence of 1 Peter 3:14-16: But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
The broader context contains instructions for the behavior of God's people, beginning in 2:11. This includes submission of Christians to law & government, of servants to masters, or wives to husbands. Giving an answer is part of that behavior, a dual submission to God and man. A submission to God in having and giving an answer, and submission to man in giving an answer to those who ask. Christians should live in fear of God and not what man might do. Disciples may suffer for righteousness sake, but do not recoil in fear.
Rather than fear what man might do, let us sanctify/separate/set apart the Lord in our hearts. Isaiah writes, "Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread (Isaiah 8:13)." The Lord God is the one we are to regard as holy; let us set that aside in our hearts and act accordingly. This prepares us to be "be ready". We are to be ready to "give an answer". This answer is apologia, a reasoned statement of why there is a hope within us. We can and should search the scriptures, rightly divide the word of truth and earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. But let us not forget the simplicity of the untutored new creature showing "how great things God hath done unto thee. Luke 8:39)."
The witness here is not one of evangelism, but a witness or answer to those who ask or inquire honestly (or authoritatively) concerning our hope. Some Bible students believe that this should be connected to the submission to authorities as taught in chapter 2. If so, the readiness advised may be considered more prayerful and spiritual rather than academic, for Jesus told His apostles when they were brought to the synagogues, and before magistrates and authoritiess, they were to take "no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say -- For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say (Luke 12:11-12)." This doesn't sound like a prepared speech or programmed answer.
John Gill writes that the answer should not be delivered in a light, trifling, and negligent manner, and no part of truth be dropped or concealed in order to please men. Further he encourages it be answered with all due respect to all men, especially the civil magistrates, who may ask the reason, with a reverence suitable to the subject.
We should give answer with meekness and fear (fear God more and fear men less, Luke 12:4-5). Our answers to men are with respect towards man, and proper fear or reverence towards God. If we fear God more than we fear man, we will not be afraid to "give an answer". Some avoid making their Christianity audible or visible, shy away from conflict, and either do not or seldom do give any answers to any men. Certainly we need to know to be swift to hear and slow to speak, but that advice rises from the appropriate application of wisdom, not from being mute concerning our faith. The intent includes deflecting false accusations off oneself, but particularly because it is reflection on the Christian profession. Do it all in good conscience, with good intent and good conversation that contradicts the false accusations and embarasses the false accusers. The Christian answers, keeping a good conscience, which others cannot see and displaying good behaviour, which which others can see. We do what is right no matter what.
The answering Christian resigns to God's will and way, "If we suffer, we suffer." We live in a world of perpetual suffering, and how much better it is to suffer for doing good rather than suffer for doing wrong! In Peter's instruction we hear echoes of the words of the "3 Hebrew children": God is able to deliver us, we believe He will deliver us, but if not, we will serve the Lord regardless.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Peter 3:15 and apologetics
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Is this the apologetics text? Dictionary.com says that apologetics is "the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity." Someone once said that 1 Peter 3:15 is the "Great Commission" for Apologetics. But is it?
Some Christians make nothing of this text. They do not engage it's instructions in any way. They shy away from and avoid giving any answers about Christianity in any way. They are not ready.
Some Christians make too little of this text. They approach life strictly as "shoot from the hip" -- don't aim, just fire.
Some Christians make too much of this text. They approach giving an answer for the reason of the hope that is in them as a specialty that requires a systematic study and an accompanying. Just anyone should not "give answer".
Surely all of these approaches live much to be desired. But, then, what does Peter mean?
That's all I have time to write at the moment. Think about this and share your comments. I'll hope to tease this out further.
Remember that verse 15 is part of a sentence couched in between the 14th and 16th verses. Maybe that will help.
1 Peter 3:14-16 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
Is this the apologetics text? Dictionary.com says that apologetics is "the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity." Someone once said that 1 Peter 3:15 is the "Great Commission" for Apologetics. But is it?
Some Christians make nothing of this text. They do not engage it's instructions in any way. They shy away from and avoid giving any answers about Christianity in any way. They are not ready.
Some Christians make too little of this text. They approach life strictly as "shoot from the hip" -- don't aim, just fire.
Some Christians make too much of this text. They approach giving an answer for the reason of the hope that is in them as a specialty that requires a systematic study and an accompanying. Just anyone should not "give answer".
Surely all of these approaches live much to be desired. But, then, what does Peter mean?
That's all I have time to write at the moment. Think about this and share your comments. I'll hope to tease this out further.
Remember that verse 15 is part of a sentence couched in between the 14th and 16th verses. Maybe that will help.
1 Peter 3:14-16 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Anderson on the Resurrection
Some of us are less prone to observe days than others, but it's quite obvious that we can't avoid the pervasive influence of this popular part of our culture.* We can choose to stick our collective heads in the sands, or we can perhaps engage popular culture with salt and light about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Around 1950 J. N. D. Anderson published a little booklet engaging an apologetic for the resurrection. He writes,
"Easter is not primarily a comfort, but a challenge. Easter's message is either the supreme fact in history or else a gigantic hoax. In the days of the early Church...On the one hand there was a little company of men and women who turned the world upside down by their passionate proclamation of the miracle which had transformed their lives: on the other hand, there were those who vehemently denounced the whole story as arrant blasphemy...Either the resurrection is infinitely more than a beautiful story, or else it is infinitely less. If it is true, then it is the supreme fact of history; and to fail to adjust one's life to its implications means irreparable loss. If it is not true, if Christ has not risen, then Christianity is all a fraud, foisted on the world by a company of consummate liars--or, at best, deluded simpletons.
"Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ true of false? It is vital for us to decide on an answer...
"Finding the pertinent data is not so infeasible as it may seem. At least two methods are available: (1) we can examine the historical evidence and (2) we can apply the test of experience."
Read more of The Evidence for the Resurrection by Norman Anderson HERE. Other online resources for or discussions of the resurrection of Jesus Christ include:
Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: an Apologetic (Part I)
Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: an Apologetic (Part II)
Jesus' Resurrection was physical
Ravi Zacharias on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Top Ten Myths About the Resurrection
* I describe this as a "popular part of our culture" because in many ways and for many people Easter is a cultural holiday rather than a religious "holy day".
"Easter is not primarily a comfort, but a challenge. Easter's message is either the supreme fact in history or else a gigantic hoax. In the days of the early Church...On the one hand there was a little company of men and women who turned the world upside down by their passionate proclamation of the miracle which had transformed their lives: on the other hand, there were those who vehemently denounced the whole story as arrant blasphemy...Either the resurrection is infinitely more than a beautiful story, or else it is infinitely less. If it is true, then it is the supreme fact of history; and to fail to adjust one's life to its implications means irreparable loss. If it is not true, if Christ has not risen, then Christianity is all a fraud, foisted on the world by a company of consummate liars--or, at best, deluded simpletons.
"Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ true of false? It is vital for us to decide on an answer...
"Finding the pertinent data is not so infeasible as it may seem. At least two methods are available: (1) we can examine the historical evidence and (2) we can apply the test of experience."
Read more of The Evidence for the Resurrection by Norman Anderson HERE. Other online resources for or discussions of the resurrection of Jesus Christ include:
Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: an Apologetic (Part I)
Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: an Apologetic (Part II)
Jesus' Resurrection was physical
Ravi Zacharias on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Top Ten Myths About the Resurrection
* I describe this as a "popular part of our culture" because in many ways and for many people Easter is a cultural holiday rather than a religious "holy day".
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Gone but not forgotten
Today a group of family gathered in Galveston to render the honor of descendants to an ancestor. 149 years ago Wyatt Vaughn died on the island of Galveston. Being war time, he was buried in an unmarked grave where he awaits God's resurrection. Wyatt Vaughn has not been forgotten* -- his story has been passed down through the generations -- but all these 149 years no stone was raised for a memorial to his name. That fault has now been corrected, through the leadership of Leslie Vaughn and the generosity of numerous family members.
Wyatt Vaughn was born in January of 1820. In 1845 he married Eliza Jane Parker in Greene County, Georgia. An "innumerable host" of the Parker family, including Wyatt and Eliza, decided to seek their future in Texas. They called for their church letters and heeded the Western call. Wyatt's "fortune" in Texas was short-lived. Arrived around 1854, he engaged in service to his state and served in Galveston during the Civil War, dying of typhoid fever on March 28, 1864.
Also honored today was Wyatt's son, John W. Vaughn, who was his eldest, who lived and served and died alongside father, three days previous on March 25, 1864. Though we do not know the exact location of their graves, memorial stones have been placed in a section set aside in the Oleander Cemetery to remember Confederate soldiers buried in Galveston.
Through the meanderings of time and the establishment of God's Providence, we proudly yet humbly call ourselves Vaughns and Texans.
* Indicating he was not forgotten, the descendants ranged from the oldest -- a great grandson -- to the youngest -- great-great-great-great children.
Wyatt Vaughn was born in January of 1820. In 1845 he married Eliza Jane Parker in Greene County, Georgia. An "innumerable host" of the Parker family, including Wyatt and Eliza, decided to seek their future in Texas. They called for their church letters and heeded the Western call. Wyatt's "fortune" in Texas was short-lived. Arrived around 1854, he engaged in service to his state and served in Galveston during the Civil War, dying of typhoid fever on March 28, 1864.
Also honored today was Wyatt's son, John W. Vaughn, who was his eldest, who lived and served and died alongside father, three days previous on March 25, 1864. Though we do not know the exact location of their graves, memorial stones have been placed in a section set aside in the Oleander Cemetery to remember Confederate soldiers buried in Galveston.
Through the meanderings of time and the establishment of God's Providence, we proudly yet humbly call ourselves Vaughns and Texans.
* Indicating he was not forgotten, the descendants ranged from the oldest -- a great grandson -- to the youngest -- great-great-great-great children.
In Memory
1. Wyatt, we never knew you.
Your life was short, then gone.
For the honor of your country,
You left your wife and home.
2. John, you followed father;
You left your family dear.
The death angel cast his shadow--
You died with father near.
3. Willing Southern soldiers
Gave toil and sacrifice.
All together served with valor--
You paid the highest price.
4. Hope says we may meet you,
Across the great divide.
A grand reunion is awaiting,
Those who in Christ have died.
Your life was short, then gone.
For the honor of your country,
You left your wife and home.
2. John, you followed father;
You left your family dear.
The death angel cast his shadow--
You died with father near.
3. Willing Southern soldiers
Gave toil and sacrifice.
All together served with valor--
You paid the highest price.
4. Hope says we may meet you,
Across the great divide.
A grand reunion is awaiting,
Those who in Christ have died.
Not Ted Turner, Ted Turnau...
How should we relate to culture? Immerse ourselves within it? Withdraw to a cave or monastery? Most of us would probably say we opt for something in between these two extremes. Yet, despite our rhetoric, it seems likely that a majority of American Christians embrace our culture mindlessly and neither "push back" nor "give back". About a year ago, Ted Turnau released on the world Popologetics: Popular Culture in Christian Perspective (P & R Publishing, 2012, ISBN 1596383895), delving into what he describes as a messy issue. "...like it or not, notice it or not, popular culture plays a huge role in our day-to-day lives, often influencing the way we think and see the world."
Here's a few "sound bytes".
So what do we do?
Here's a few "sound bytes".
"The problem is that popular culture is also a pervasive influence. It seems at once ephemeral and vital. Christians often either dismiss its influence as trivial or become flustered and assume a defensive posture. Popular culture is like something floating in the air around us, and it has the power to influence our beliefs. But we're not really sure what to do about it."Not only are we not really sure what to do about it, we often don't know where to look for help.
"Popular culture has emerged in the last hundred years or so as one of the most significant carriers (perhaps the most significant carrier) of worldview and values in the West....For many Christians, worldview talk sounds too intellectual to be practically helpful...A worldview is the perspective from which you understand reality...like conversations, worldviews often take unexpected turns as we are confronted with the shocks, surprises, and recurring pains and delights that life throws at us."Within our culture is an epidemic of self-love, embracing the fallen nature and casting God down from His throne. According to Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell, when we make observations about "cultural change--especially changes in the negative direction--one runs the risk of mistaking one's aging for a true shift in culture"! So for a middle-ager like me, it is encouraging to know that young Christians are observing the culture shift as well. It's not just the mistake of old men!
So what do we do?
"Our task as Christians, then, is to respond to popular culture as a messy, deeply meaningful mixture. And I believe the only appropriate response to something that messy and that meaningful is apologetics [defending and commending the Christian faith in a context of unbelief]...Engaging popular culture will not save the world...It will allow you to enter into dialogue with [your family, your friends, the folks you work with, and the folks you relax with] and speak truth into their lives with sensitivity, insight and grace. And maybe, just maybe, it will help you love these people and be salt and light in the lives of those around you."As culture carries conservative Christians farther than we want to go and keeps us longer than we want to stay, it is vital that we think deeply and scripturally on how we are in the world but not of the world -- And that we engage our culture, messy as it is, with a dialogue about God from the word of God.
Friday, March 22, 2013
When the lights come on
While studying at Westminster Theological Seminary, Ted Turnau* tells of how he was driven by apologetics and "wanted to build a fool-proof philosophical argument for God's existence." One day he went to visits his apologetics professor, David Clowney, who wasn't in his office. So he knocked on the next door...
According to the starting point for apologetics is "hearing God's voice, and seeing the world through those lenses." And those are scriptural lenses. Amen!
* Turnau has recently published Popologetics: Popular Culture in Christian Perspective (P & R Publishing, 2012, ISBN 1596383895).
** This story is taken by permission from an interview with by Jared Moore, and published on his blog site This is God's world
"It was Vern Poythress, one of the New Testament profs there. He opened the door and asked what I wanted. I told him I needed to talk, and proceeded to tell him the whole story of my time at Westminster, why I’d come, what I was looking for. I said, “I just want some solid, logical proof that God exists. Then I could believe in him.” Vern thought for a moment, and then said, “Let’s say that the phone rings. It’s your Dad. You talk for a bit, and then hang up. I ask you who it was, and you say, ‘It was my Dad.’ And I say back to you, ‘Prove it. Give me an airtight, logical proof that you were just talking to your Dad.’ You wouldn’t be able to. And yet you know that you were talking to your father. How? Because you know your father’s voice. Well, that’s exactly the experience of Christians when they read the Bible. They know their Father’s voice.” And I said, “Oh,” and a light bulb came on over my head (just like the cartoons)."**There is much confirming evidence and many philosophical arguments for God's existence -- and for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is a "hot topic" this time of year. But we must also understand that we approach Him by faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. It is by that faith that we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. It is by that faith we believe that God is
According to the starting point for apologetics is "hearing God's voice, and seeing the world through those lenses." And those are scriptural lenses. Amen!
* Turnau has recently published Popologetics: Popular Culture in Christian Perspective (P & R Publishing, 2012, ISBN 1596383895).
** This story is taken by permission from an interview with by Jared Moore, and published on his blog site This is God's world
Thursday, March 21, 2013
A Baptist Pope?
For over a month, from Benedict's announced resignation to Francis' inauguration, the name "Pope" has been worldwide news. No end appears in sight. At this point some proud Baptist may be tempted to rear back on his heels, hitch up his galluses, puff out his chest and declare, "We don't have no pope!" And he would be right, if we are looking for someone wearing that title around a Baptist church. But, do we? There is no office in any Baptist church or denomination called "the pope". In Roman Catholic domain, the Pope is the head of their church, the representative of Christ on earth who has supreme and universal power over the whole Church -- or as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."* The term "pope" in the English language also applies to any person who has or assumes authority in such a way that it resembles that of the Roman Catholic Pope.
In the Baptist sphere, each local congregation is an autonomous body under Christ rather than worldwide as the Catholic Church. Within Baptist definitions of the church, any person in a local congregation who has or assumes authority to run the church has become a Baptist pope. And, yes, though it violates their ecclesiological precepts, Baptists are no strangers to giving (or having usurped) supreme authority to one person in a local church, whether that person be a pastor, head deacon or chief matriarch. In principle, a Baptist pope is no better than a Catholic one!
1. A pastor is not the head of the church. I cringe every time I hear some person refer to their pastor as the head of their church. Away with such! A church with the pastor as head becomes a two-headed monstrosity, for there is already one biblically denominated Head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, Master and Redeemer. Paul Tripp succinctly writes, "If Christ is the head of his body, then everything else is just body, including the pastor." Jesus Christ is the head of the body, the church. He is eternal, the beginning, the firstborn from the dead. He in all things in the church must have the preeminence (Colossians 1:18).
2. The pastor is not the mediator for his members. Baptists have no confessionals on the Catholic order, but some feel they must reconcile the church to God. He becomes their pope, confessor, confidant, and advisor. All things between the church member and God must go through him first for approval. There is one God, and one mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5), and the pastor isn't him!
3. A pastor is not the guide into all truth. This is the Holy Spirit's office. "...when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). Yes, pastors should -- yea, must -- preach and teach, but the church, guided by the Spirit must interpret what is spoken. When a Catholic Pope speaks from his office, his church is obliged to receive it as if God has spoken. When a Baptist elder speaks from his office, his church is obliged to search the scriptures whether these things are so (Acts 17:11). (Notably, unlike some popish Baptist preachers, the Spirit of truth does "not speak of himself.")
4. A pastor is not God's anointed, God's king or God's priest in any way over and above his flock -- all of whom are God's anointed, God's kings and God's priests. Some ministers think they are the Lord's Anointed, and somehow above reproach (Cf. Psalm 105:15). Rather all the Lord's people in that pastor's church are the Lord's anointed (See 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and 1 John 2:20,27). The Lord's people are a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), who have been made kings and priests unto God and his Father (Revelation 1:6). Thomas Williamson writes, "The effect...of the new emphasis on the exalted rights of ordained ministers, is to create a new class of 'Untouchables'...at the top of Christian society, taking advantage of their sheepish followers at will, clobbering them anytime they want to, while they themselves cannot be touched. They will reign like kings, living the life of Riley while their riled subjects have no choice but to bow down and obey."
5. A pastor is not a titled individual of rank. He is not a Doctor, Master, Reverend or Father. Jesus taught against such elevation (Matthew 23:8-10). I work in the education industry. Within that context I do not object to addressing a degreed individual as "Doctor". But in the church it should not be so (Mark 10:42-44). One is our Master, the Lord Jesus Christ. The rest of us are all brethren. Even those of us who reject unscriptural religious titles such as Doctor and Reverend must be careful to not get caught up playing the title game. Often the scriptural office is converted into an unscriptural title! Instead of referring to John Doe, a lower-case "e" elder in XYZ Church, we speak of Capital "E" Elder John Doe. The New Testament teaching on religious titles condemns the practices of most denominations of Christians, and, regrettably, many Baptists are no exception.
A Baptist pope? May it never be!
* Paragraph 937 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
** In this post, I have consistently referred to a pastor, but the warnings apply to any person or persons who would attempt to be a Diotrephes dominating and domineering the church.
In the Baptist sphere, each local congregation is an autonomous body under Christ rather than worldwide as the Catholic Church. Within Baptist definitions of the church, any person in a local congregation who has or assumes authority to run the church has become a Baptist pope. And, yes, though it violates their ecclesiological precepts, Baptists are no strangers to giving (or having usurped) supreme authority to one person in a local church, whether that person be a pastor, head deacon or chief matriarch. In principle, a Baptist pope is no better than a Catholic one!
1. A pastor is not the head of the church. I cringe every time I hear some person refer to their pastor as the head of their church. Away with such! A church with the pastor as head becomes a two-headed monstrosity, for there is already one biblically denominated Head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, Master and Redeemer. Paul Tripp succinctly writes, "If Christ is the head of his body, then everything else is just body, including the pastor." Jesus Christ is the head of the body, the church. He is eternal, the beginning, the firstborn from the dead. He in all things in the church must have the preeminence (Colossians 1:18).
2. The pastor is not the mediator for his members. Baptists have no confessionals on the Catholic order, but some feel they must reconcile the church to God. He becomes their pope, confessor, confidant, and advisor. All things between the church member and God must go through him first for approval. There is one God, and one mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5), and the pastor isn't him!
3. A pastor is not the guide into all truth. This is the Holy Spirit's office. "...when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). Yes, pastors should -- yea, must -- preach and teach, but the church, guided by the Spirit must interpret what is spoken. When a Catholic Pope speaks from his office, his church is obliged to receive it as if God has spoken. When a Baptist elder speaks from his office, his church is obliged to search the scriptures whether these things are so (Acts 17:11). (Notably, unlike some popish Baptist preachers, the Spirit of truth does "not speak of himself.")
4. A pastor is not God's anointed, God's king or God's priest in any way over and above his flock -- all of whom are God's anointed, God's kings and God's priests. Some ministers think they are the Lord's Anointed, and somehow above reproach (Cf. Psalm 105:15). Rather all the Lord's people in that pastor's church are the Lord's anointed (See 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and 1 John 2:20,27). The Lord's people are a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), who have been made kings and priests unto God and his Father (Revelation 1:6). Thomas Williamson writes, "The effect...of the new emphasis on the exalted rights of ordained ministers, is to create a new class of 'Untouchables'...at the top of Christian society, taking advantage of their sheepish followers at will, clobbering them anytime they want to, while they themselves cannot be touched. They will reign like kings, living the life of Riley while their riled subjects have no choice but to bow down and obey."
5. A pastor is not a titled individual of rank. He is not a Doctor, Master, Reverend or Father. Jesus taught against such elevation (Matthew 23:8-10). I work in the education industry. Within that context I do not object to addressing a degreed individual as "Doctor". But in the church it should not be so (Mark 10:42-44). One is our Master, the Lord Jesus Christ. The rest of us are all brethren. Even those of us who reject unscriptural religious titles such as Doctor and Reverend must be careful to not get caught up playing the title game. Often the scriptural office is converted into an unscriptural title! Instead of referring to John Doe, a lower-case "e" elder in XYZ Church, we speak of Capital "E" Elder John Doe. The New Testament teaching on religious titles condemns the practices of most denominations of Christians, and, regrettably, many Baptists are no exception.
A Baptist pope? May it never be!
* Paragraph 937 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
** In this post, I have consistently referred to a pastor, but the warnings apply to any person or persons who would attempt to be a Diotrephes dominating and domineering the church.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
2 Unusual sentence types
According to www.dictionary.com
Pangram is a verse or sentence that contains includes all the letters of the alphabet. E.g. A quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs.
Palindrome is a word, line, verse, number, sentence, reading the same backward as forward. E.g. Madam, I'm Adam or Poor Dan is in a droop.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Papal bull*
Papal Bull: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff." (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis). -- issued 18 November 1302, by Boniface Pope VIII
According the Catholic Encyclopedia at NewAdvent.org, "The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation." Also, "The Bull is universal in character."
Is this still the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?
* a formal papal document, apparently so called because it has a bulla (seal) attached
According the Catholic Encyclopedia at NewAdvent.org, "The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation." Also, "The Bull is universal in character."
Is this still the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?
* a formal papal document, apparently so called because it has a bulla (seal) attached
New London School
Yesterday was the 76th anniversary of the New London School disaster. If you would like to learn more about it, visit the website HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)